Wildlife Promise » United Nationshttp://blog.nwf.org
The National Wildlife Federation's blogTue, 03 Mar 2015 16:19:30 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2COP 19 Update: Delivering the Messagehttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/11/cop-19-update-delivering-the-message/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/11/cop-19-update-delivering-the-message/#commentsMon, 25 Nov 2013 21:01:57 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=88588Read more >]]>This weekend marked the official end of the 19th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Governments have agreed on a text after working through Friday night and into midday Saturday. Civil society spread its message, and National Wildlife Federation’s primary focus—Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation—finished negotiations on time and with a positive note.

REDD text adopted by UNFCCC plenary. Credit: Ethan Spaner

There are two main things to know about NWF during this conference.

First, there are the negotiations as a whole, and the decisions made here will affect the United States and NWF’s domestic work. The decisions send signals to business, investors and funders back home on whether the U.S. and the rest of the world can expect action on carbon pollution, and a weak agreement will mean that nations, industry and organizations will have to work without a proper guidance framework.

Governments did not come to an agreement that sufficiently addresses the danger climate change presents. While agreements on certain aspects—such as helping developing countries cope with adverse effects of climate change—seem to show that there is recognition of a problem and action needed to address it, no hard timeline has been set for bringing forth finance commitments or how ambitious pre-2020 emissions reduction commitments should be.

As I leave Warsaw, I can say that the process has been mostly frustrating, but at times inspiring. I’ve seen somewhat ambitious texts on a new climate agreement get flattened, and nations whose sole aim was to block negotiation progress. But I’ve also seen my NWF coworkers literally run down the halls to help their colleagues from other organizations, and vice versa, and I received incredible support from the Climate Action Network, of which NWF is a member.

The United States is normally singled out for its inaction in these talks, but this year was different. A combination of domestic action based on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, efforts to move negotiations forward and the sheer horror of other countries backtracking on their commitments made the U.S. look mostly benign. There are still plenty of areas where the U.S. needs improvement, but there was a sense that times may be changing for America’s stance on climate change.

REDD negotiators finalize their text. credit: Nathalie Walker

NWF’s Tropical Forests and Agriculture team focused their work on the negotiations surrounding deforestation and forest degradation. This turned out to be one of the bright spots of Warsaw, as a definite set of rules were established for reducing deforestation and protecting the world’s forests in the future. This includes public financing, as the $280 million “BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes” was launched, with the United States contributing $25 million. After a contentious night of negotiations ended in a walk-out, a system was agreed upon to disburse and control these funds and others that will support REDD activities.

Speaking of walk-outs, over 800 NGO members walked out of the stadium on Thursday and handed in their badges, fed up with the lack of progress being made in Warsaw. NWF was not a part of this, and we instead stayed back, in the belief that we could achieve more inside the building than out, and called for more action from governments. This included a speech given by yours truly at a joint high-level plenary (click on my name in the frame to the right, or fast forward to the 28 minute mark).

After all, if we’re going to address the climate crisis, we need to act immediately.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/11/cop-19-update-delivering-the-message/feed/2Progress in Cancun Climate Talks, Much Left To Dohttp://blog.nwf.org/2010/12/progress-in-cancun-climate-talks-but-much-left-to-do/
http://blog.nwf.org/2010/12/progress-in-cancun-climate-talks-but-much-left-to-do/#commentsSat, 11 Dec 2010 20:45:20 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=9830Read more >]]>In the wee hours of the morning, international negotiators announced we had an agreement in Cancun on some forward steps, building blocks toward a binding treaty we hope. There’s still a long way to go however, and a lot was left unfinished.

Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director of the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement today:

“Progress was made on a number of important issues, but it’s clear the Senate’s failure to pass clean energy legislation tied the hands of negotiators to come to a full global deal. Formally recognizing the Copenhagen reduction targets – including the U.S. 17 percent reductions by 2020 – still leaves the world woefully short of what needs to be done to tackle the climate crisis.”

The U.S. and Canadian delegations shared the dubious fossil awards for obstructing progress at various points in the negotiations. Canada, which extracts most of the world’s dirty tar sands, “won” multiple awards.

The talks were often tense, with speculation that Japan, Russia, Bolivia, China in addition to the U.S. were at times playing an unhelpful role. Nonetheless, the process worked to bring agreement in a variey of areas.

Barbara Bramble, NWF senior international affairs advisor said:

“While the process is cumbersome at times, the U.N.’s Framework Convention remains our best forum for convening global powers to solve a massive global problem. The process can work, and in fact produced some forward progress here in Cancun, particularly on deforestation and assisting vulnerable countries. But by not getting more done in Cancun, we are raising the stakes at the next round of talks in South Africa.”

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2010/12/progress-in-cancun-climate-talks-but-much-left-to-do/feed/0South Of The Border, A Chance To Prove American Exceptionalism By Climate Leadershiphttp://blog.nwf.org/2010/12/south-of-the-border-american-exceptionalism/
http://blog.nwf.org/2010/12/south-of-the-border-american-exceptionalism/#commentsWed, 01 Dec 2010 19:55:22 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=9116Read more >]]>

Adorable, no?

Whether you think of it as a meaningless political catchphrase or a legitimate ideal, ‘American exceptionalism’ is a hot topic now. I’ll wait over here while you fight about it.

Done?

Well, With almost 200 nations convening in Cancun this week for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to talk once more about how they can tackle the planet’s carbon problem, it’s time to discuss it again…both because we, Americans, have such an important part to play in the conference and because, all too often, we get the idea of being exceptional all wrong.

“Continuing the Kyoto Protocol only makes sense if major economies which are not part of it like the U.S., China and India also make further commitments,” said Artur Runge-Metzger, a senior European Union negotiator.

“The EU is ready to agree on an ambitious global climate framework in Cancun, but regrettably some other major economies are not,” she said. “No new legislation unfortunately came out of the American Senate.”

“Cancun can nevertheless take the world a significant step forward by agreeing on a balanced set of decisions covering many key issues,” she added. “It is crucial that Cancun delivers this progress, otherwise the U.N. climate change process risks losing momentum and relevance.”

Even members of Congress aren’t all that interested in the conference, just as they have been regrettably absent on most climate matters in recent years. As Lisa Friedman, Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick write for ClimateWire (subscription required), “[t]he apathy is palpable.” The Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of the year, which means there’s not much time left for major carbon polluters (namely the U.S. and China) to take real, substantial steps to cut their emissions—thus greatly improving the chances that other supporters will extend the agreement or forge a new, stronger one. Right now, in many ways, the U.S. is both the elephant in the room and one of the few stakeholders still shying away from the table.

The Cancun conference, much like previous international climate meetings, illustrates one problem with our collective identity pretty well. Lost in all the talk about what makes America special is the fact that exceptionalism cuts both ways, or it ought to—and it’s not the same thing as American exemption.

Exceptionalism once implied that we were unique by deed rather than exempt from responsibility by cultural birthright. We were seen as thought leaders, moral leaders, social leaders—forward as only America can be. We earned credit for being the boldest, brightest and most virtuous nation rather than claiming it by fiat.

Another year, another opportunity to prove just how exceptional we are. This time, let’s hope we do it the right way.

The future of life on Earth is on the negotiating table in Nagoya, Japan as delegates from more than 190 countries grapple with carrying out the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Created at the Earth Summit in 1992, the Convention has set aggressive targets for cutting the rate of species extinctions and slowing habitat loss worldwide. Unfortunately, these 2010 targets not only have been missed, but the pace of biodiversity loss is getting worse. It is against this discouraging backdrop—as well as attempts in Nagoya to establish a new set of targets for 2020—that we must ask the question, “how much of a difference do our conservation efforts really make?”

A newly published global analysis, on which I am a co-author, demonstrates conclusively that the news would be even worse if not for conservation efforts already underway. “The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates,” published today online by the prestigious journal Science, considers the fate of more than 25,000 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians worldwide. Assessing the conservation status of each of these species has been a gargantuan task, carried out by a veritable army of more than 3,000 scientists around the globe.

Although the term “big science” usually is applied to such endeavors as atom smashers and sequencing the human genome, the global scientific collaboration that underpins the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species qualifies to be included in that category. Reflecting the vastness of this effort, this newly published paper includes more than 150 co-authors.

Based on our latest assessments of the condition of the world’s vertebrates—that is, animals with backbones—nearly one-fifth are classified as threatened, ranging from 13% of birds to 41% of amphibians.

Understanding the current conservation status of these species tells only part of the story, though. To determine whether things are getting better or worse we must also have a way of detecting changes over time. Over the past few years my colleagues in the IUCN Red List Program have developed a means for analyzing trends in these species assessments — referred to as the Red List Index — to understand how well or poorly these species are doing. We found that from 1980 to 2008 an average of 52 species each year moved one Red List category closer to extinction.

Have conservation efforts made any measurable difference in slowing these rates?

This is a difficult question to measure directly, since oftentimes conservation actions are necessary just to maintain a species at its current condition, rather than recover it sufficiently for it to move to a less threatened Red List category.

The short answer is “yes, conservation efforts have helped and it could have been much worse.” Of 928 species that shifted in Red List threat categories, 68 (or 7%) showed an improvement in condition, with all but four of these directly due to conservation actions. By comparing the observed changes in the Red List Index with the trends expected without these conservation-dependent improvements, we can then conservatively measure the effect that conservation efforts have on slowing the global decline in these species groups.

Poison Dart Frog Sitting on a Leaf (Credit: Flickr/MoleSon)

The bottom line is that conservation actions can and do have a demonstrable effect on slowing the rate of global biodiversity loss—basically making a bad situation less bad.

Unfortunately, there is still a huge mismatch between what is needed and what is available for biodiversity conservation, both in terms of the scale of actions and investments, and where these actions are taking place.

As delegates to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya attempt to conclude their work, they can take heart that although the indicators of biodiversity health are still moving in the wrong direction, conservation actions and investments can and do make a real and measurable difference. To meet the scale of the challenge, and have a hope of making good on whatever new 2020 targets for reducing biodiversity decline are adopted, the nation’s of the world will need to dramatically ramp up our levels of investment and actions.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2010/10/new-global-analysis-shows-value-of-conservation/feed/2United Nations Reject Coral Protectionshttp://blog.nwf.org/2010/03/united-nations-reject-coral-protections/
http://blog.nwf.org/2010/03/united-nations-reject-coral-protections/#commentsMon, 22 Mar 2010 21:10:12 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/2010/03/united-nations-reject-coral-protections/Read more >]]>Delegates at the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) rejected yesterday a proposal that would have regulated the trade of red and pink coral worldwide.

The proposal, offered by the United States and Sweden, would have regulated for the first time red and pink coral, which is used for the jewelry, home decor and homeopathic medicine market.

Environmentalists and scientists argue that coral, which are living animals, are seriously threatened by rising carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the ocean and making it more acidic. Since nearly 30 percent of the world's tropical coral species have disappeared since 1980, it is argued that the species cannot afford the added pressure of commercial harvest.

"Corals are the building blocks of many ocean ecosystems, and the science is clear: They are at great risk," said Dawn Martin, president of SeaWeb. "And now, since action was not taken at CITES, red and pink coral populations will continue to decline at an alarming rate."

The countries that traditionally lobby for marine resources, specifically Japan, Iceland, Libya and Tunisia, spoke out against the proposal, arguing that it would jeopardize fishing jobs. Passage in CITES requires two-thirds of the delegate votes, and the measure failed on a secret ballot with 64 in favor, 59 opposing and 10 abstaining.

This decision comes three days after a similar rejection of a proposed ban on exporting Atlantic bluefin tuna and the polar bear trade.

In a more positive decision, the 175 countries gathered at CITES unanimously voted to ban the international trade of Kaiser's spotted newt. According to the World Wildlife Fund, about 1,000 of the salamander are left, and about 200 are traded each year. The black and brown Iranian newt is a often sought as a pet, traded via the internet.

This proposal makes the Kaiser's spotted newt the first species threatened by electronic commerce to receive environmental protection.

Yesterday, on March 18th, 2010, the United Nations rejected a proposal to ban export of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. This U.S.-backed proposal was defeated after major lobbying by the Japanese. Japan imports 80 percent of Bluefin Tuna, and claimed that a ban on the fish would devastate its economy and the economies of other, poorer nations.

Stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna are down 75 percent, due largely to the Japanese sushi market. Fishing nations in Africa, Asian, Latin America and the Caribbean worried that any ban would damage their fishing markets and that fears of the tuna stock’s collapse were overstated.

“It’s pretty irresponsible of the governments to hear the science and ignore the science,” said Susan Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group in DC. “Clearly, there was pressure from the fishing interests. The fish is too valuable for its own good.”

From the moment the proposal was presented, it was clear that there was not much support. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the proposal outright. The European Union asked that its implementation be delayed until May 2011, so that authorities had time to respond to concerns about overfishing.

Japan has acknowledged that tuna stocks are in trouble, but stated that the UN should have no role in regulating the species. Japan expressed a willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna. However, a similar tuna ban was withdrawn in 1992 under the condition that fishing nations would improve their practices. Since then, tuna numbers have still plummeted.

The UN’s decision on bluefin tuna came just hours after after delegates rejected a U.S. proposal to ban the international sale of polar bear skins and parts. The U.S. argued that the sale of polar bear skins is exacerbating the loss of the bear’s sea ice habitat due to climate change.

“There is virtually no controversy in the scientific community that rapid global warming is threatening the polar bear and rampant overharvesting is threatening the bluefin tuna,” said John Kostyack, NWF’s Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming. “Yet for some nations and some industries, it is difficult to confront this reality because it threatens short-term profits. Thankfully in this case the U.S. government was on the side of sound science and looking out for our children and grandchildren, who always pay the price for our shortsighted behavior.”

One of the issues with getting new, clean technology into developing countries has been the worry that giving this equipment away often leads to misuse. During a panel discussion titled, "The Development Agenda for Clean Energy and Transfer of Technologies," I asked what could be done to fund projects that provide these technologies at a minimum cost, which will ideally help these nations reach their environmental and energy goals. The answers I received indicated that creating a market for a particular machine or technology seems to help: one panelist explained that all of the costs his organization had paid out initially were eventually recovered, such that the project became profitable after a few years. He emphasized the need to enter in to an existing market or create a market for a particular good or service that will allow an individual or business owner to earn at least a little money on their investment.

As an example, another panelist offered an example where PV solar panels were installed in a village and villagers were trained about the maintenance and use of the system. To recover the cost of installing the panels, villagers were charged $3/month for electricity, a portion of which went to the people maintaining the system, helping to sustain the project over the long term.

I stuck around the U.S. Center for the next panel discussion, "Mitigating Climate Change: Capturing Carbon Underground, in Soil and in Plants." I find the idea of carbon sequestration to be potentially harmful (excuse to keep using coal and fossil fuels), or at least ineffective, but know little about the different means of capturing and storing CO2. I figured that perhaps it was time to learn something new! The session was actually hosted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), including representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

First, one woman explained the process and effectiveness of using ecosystem restoration to store carbon in plant life and in the soil. This is called biological or terrestrial carbon sequestration. It's actually really fascinating, can help to increase wildlife habitat and it works! (Read more about how it works here.) One thing I didn't know: Wetlands may actually have more potential to sequester carbon dioxide than typical forests.

When the woman from USGS presented the geological carbon sequestration concept, explaining that some oil and gas companies have used injection wells to pump liquid CO2 down into oil wells in order to aid with oil extraction, I was not impressed. Oil companies use energy to capture, transport and pump this CO2 (which in most cases today comes from natural deposits, not the atmosphere) to the oil wells, so that they can pump more oil and emit more GHGs. How will this possibly help us move toward carbon neutrality? Of course, other locations are being considered for storing the liquid carbon dioxide, but it is up to the USGS to determine whether formations like saltwater aquifers are safe and will actually store the CO2 permanently. I asked her if there have been any studies done to evaluate the overall effect that this technology would have on the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. She said that at this time the amount of energy needed to sequester the carbon outweighs the atmospheric CO2 reduction that could theoretically be achieved. Determining whether or not this is a worthwhile technology for emissions reductions is up to the Department of Energy, she said, but the USGS is working to determine if and where the carbon could safely and successfully be stored if geological carbon sequestration is pursued into the future.

That evening, I decided to participate in the China+US Youth Workshop, "Our Shared Future", on the University of Copenhagen campus. I was curious to see how strategies and action differed in these two giants, especially as negotiations between U.S. and Chinese governments are seen as the critical factor in the outcome of this conference.

Once we had all gotten to know each other, we broke up into small groups and began talking about our work to promote clean energy and address climate change in our native countries. It seemed that while many of the efforts in China were top-down and done in collaboration with the Chinese government, U.S. efforts were largely grassroots initiatives demanding action from political leaders, often against incredible opposition from certain industries and corporations.

We also began brainstorming ways in which we can work together, rather than in continual conflict with one another as our governments often do. Several valuable points were made, especially that cooperation between our countries will depend on increasing the mutual trust on both sides at all levels of society and government. In order to foster this trust, we entertained ideas ranging from setting up Facebook and Google groups so that we can all keep in touch and exchange information to organizing foreign exchange programs for sustainable development and social entrepreneurship in both of our countries.

I met a female student named Yuki studying mechanical engineering (my major when I was studying at Georgia Tech) in China who expressed interest in learning more about U.S. green building technologies. This brought up another great point, which is that while our governments may refuse to share information about certain technologies with each other, we are free to exchange this information as individuals (at least to the point where we aren't violating any laws or patents). I got Yuki's contact information and am planning to send her articles and information describing some of our best sustainable building practices. Here are some photos from the event.

I'm way in the back to the right. Yuki is the girl with long hair and bangs near the front (center). Ben (bearded guy giving a thumbs up on the left) and Holly (girl with the scarf right next to him) both played a key role in organizing this event.

Friday, December 11 (Day 3)

The first session I attended this morning was called "Connecting Biodiversity, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation." I was reminded of important issues to keep in mind when considering the effects of and possible solutions to climate change: while most of us know that natural ecosystems and the life forms they support will be the first ones affected by a changing climate, it was still shocking to hear that
approximately 10% of species on earth will face extinction for every 1 degree Celsius in average global temperature increase. That's in addition to the species threatened by habitat loss and other non-climate related threats! I also learned that about 20% of human caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come directly from deforestation. So the question is, how do we stop and even reverse deforestation and other forms of land degradation to prevent this release of GHGs and actually increase the earth's capacity to store carbon dioxide in plants and soil?

The United Nations' answer to this question is a program called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), intended to fund reforestation efforts and ecosystem conservation. Learn more about REDD here. At least one of the speakers at this session emphasized that projects funded through the REDD program must carefully evaluated regarding their ecological, cultural and social impacts. Some issues have arisen due to difficulties in monitoring and quantifying the actual impact of REDD projects that have been funded in the past. It seems that in order for REDD to successfully reduce the amount of GHGs in our atmosphere, there must be improved means of estimating and evaluating the effectiveness of projects funded to sequester carbon from the air.

One speaker also suggested that any successful REDD project must have co-benefits beyond just carbon intake. For example, such a project should also support native wildlife repopulation and provide a good livelihood for nearby populations.Immediately after this session, I went to a panel discussion by Indigenous people from Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. They discussed their experiences with the REDD program and expressed some concerns about the limitations it has. From their perspective, there should be REDD mechanisms for communities to engage in ecological management as they have in the past. They pointed out that land owned by indigenous peoples is often better managed than land owned and managed by others. They were calling for implementation of the proposed REDD-plus program, which would provide support to those who maintain forests in addition to reforestation efforts.

My last session of the day was "Alternative Energy Programmes for the Least Developed and Developing World" in the U.S. Center. According to a Kateri Callahan, President of the Alliance to Save Energy, $170 billion invested in energy efficiency through the year 2020 could result in a reduction of as much as 50% in global energy demand. ($170 billion may sound like a lot but, to give a bit of perspective, General Electric's 2008 revenue amounted to $183 billion. We spend more than $170 billion each year on our Navy and Marine Corps in the U.S.) The savings on energy bills alone would allow the investment to be recovered within a matter of years.

There's more, but it's 6:45am in Copenhagen, so I will let this be for now. More tomorrow.

Hello from Copenhagen! This is Christine Dorsey, communications director for National Wildlife Federation, and I’m on the ground in Copenhagen at the United Nations climate conference, or as it’s known around the world, COP15 – that’s short for the 15th Conference of Parties (to a global climate treaty).

You’ve probably heard or read about this meeting, where heads of state from all over the world are convening for two weeks to negotiate a new agreement on how to tackle global climate change. As you might imagine, this is a complicated effort. There is a lot to consider – how quickly must we cut global warming pollution? What level of action should the world expect from wealthy, “developed” nations like the U.S.? What about “developing” nations like China and India, that historically have not emitted nearly the same amount of CO2 as industrialized nations, but are expected to soon surpass countries like ours, due to their fast-growing economies?

Global negotiations of any sort are never easy, and these are no different. To help you better understand this process go to www.nwf.org/copenhagen to read more about the issues at stake in the negotiations.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is joining this process late in the game, and there is a fair amount of frustration among other nations that our efforts to reduce our global warming pollution are not nearly aggressive enough. We’ve spent the last eight years on the sidelines, so the Obama administration has its work cut out for it to re-gain the trust of the rest of the world and offer up a plan for doing our fair share. News that President Obama will attend the last day of the negotiation is an excellent sign that the U.S. is serious about finding a path forward to a new global agreement.

I’ll be following the talks from the conservation perspective: National Wildlife Federation is working to improve elements of the agreement that would protect tropical forests – which can house enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, not to mention wildlife. We’re also helping keep the pressure on the U.S. negotiators to come to the table with a plan that aggressively reduces U.S. global warming pollution.

You will no doubt see some distracting headlines along the way. Climate deniers backed by Exxon-Mobil and other Big Oil interests are out in full force using every dirty trick in the book in a desperate attempt to derail climate progress.

But they are far outnumbered by those of us who know the truth: the Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, and the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. We have an obligation to our families to address this problem, and now is our time to act.

Check back here often to follow the progress. I just got off the plane, so I promise photos and video later! And please post comments and questions for our NWF delegation.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2009/12/live-from-copenhagen/feed/0“The Eyes of the World are on the U.S.”http://blog.nwf.org/2009/11/the-eyes-of-the-world-are-on-the-u-s/
http://blog.nwf.org/2009/11/the-eyes-of-the-world-are-on-the-u-s/#commentsMon, 16 Nov 2009 22:27:30 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/2009/11/16/the-eyes-of-the-world-are-on-the-u-s/Read more >]]>Over the weekend, we learned world leaders are scaling back expectations for the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit. Here’s what Jeremy Symons, National Wildlife Federation senior vice president, had to say about the decision at Politico’s forum, The Arena:

If there were ever any doubts about the global significance of Congressional action to enact a clean energy and climate plan for America, the run-up to Copenhagen should erase them. The eyes of the world are on the United States, which has the greatest capacity to lead the green economy renaissance that will lower pollution levels and safeguard our children’s future. Copenhagen remains a critical moment to engage all nations in a more ambitious global effort that keeps pace with the latest climate science.

With Senate action on clean energy legislation now delayed, a successful outcome at Copenhagen would be akin to a successful visit to a tailor to buy a new suit. You pick the fabric and style, take measurements and agree on a date to make the final adjustments and close the deal. Similarly, the nations of the world should come out of Copenhagen with an agreement on the architecture and timeline that will shape the final deal. The extended timeline should be months, not years. It should give Congress the time needed to get a strong clean energy and climate bill to President Obama for his signature in early 2010, but also recognize that delay increases the cost of the climate response and the risk of climate disasters.

President Obama needs to provide the leadership to take full advantage of Copenhagen and ensure a successful outcome. And the Senate needs to recognize that prompt action on a U.S. climate bill will not only repower America’s economy with clean energy, but also galvanize global cooperation on climate change.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2009/11/the-eyes-of-the-world-are-on-the-u-s/feed/0Consequences of Copenhagen, Part II: Local Effortshttp://blog.nwf.org/2009/11/consequences-of-copenhagen-part-ii-local-efforts/
http://blog.nwf.org/2009/11/consequences-of-copenhagen-part-ii-local-efforts/#commentsMon, 16 Nov 2009 18:20:16 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/2009/11/16/consequences-of-copenhagen-part-ii-local-efforts/Read more >]]>Today we present part 2 of a 4 part series on the upcoming United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen, where leaders from around the globe will come together to negotiate a new global climate treaty.

The Boulder Bubble

Local governments vow to press ahead with emissions reductions regardless of the outcome at the upcoming Copenhagen talks. Can those efforts carry the day if international negotiations devolve to bickering and stalemate?

Here's what this affluent Rocky Mountain city of 100,000 does about a revenue shortfall in the darkest economic hour since the Great Depression:

It raises its carbon tax.

The city just west of Denver was the first in the nation to slap a levy on carbon emissions so it could meet Kyoto Protocol obligations. As it became apparent this summer the city was slipping and needed more cash to revitalize emissions-cutting programs, town leaders raised the modest tax – tacked to city utility bills – to its maximum.

With diplomatic efforts to seal a post-Kyoto accord approaching a decidedly uncertain fate this December in Copenhagen, state and local leaders pushing their own emissions reductions efforts see only one choice: Proceed.

The number of cities and regional governments undertaking this transition to a low-carbon economy is growing. These efforts, leaders vow, will continue whatever the outcome of political debates in Copenhagen, Brussels or Washington, D.C.

There are, in other words, two trains heading out of the station: Those driving local change are confident their programs will continue to accelerate even if global discussions get waylaid in Copenhagen next month.

"The community is on board with this," said Sarah Van Pelt, author of Boulder's climate action plan who is now a special projects coordinator for the city's environmental division. "Right now our biggest detractors are saying why aren't we doing enough."

San Diego is tying recycling, water use and energy efficiency to climate; Berkeley, Calif. has rewritten property rules to boost solar installations; New York and California are shifting state policy to encourage a new, low-carbon economy. Twenty-nine other states have some sort of a renewable fuel standard, requiring utilities to mix a certain percentage of those fuels into their power mix.

"If nothing happens on the federal level, it's unfortunate but it's not the end of the world," said Cara Martinson, legislative analyst for the California State Association of Counties. "We'll start to see a lot more of these regional activities. It'll start to be a bottom-up approach if the national framework breaks down."

Whether these local efforts can produce the reductions required to avert the worst climate disruption is much debated. Many climate experts are skeptical. The necessary cuts are substantial, they require economy-wide transformation and the initiatives need to be policed by a fixed, enforceable global treaty.

"It's hard to see how they could be sufficient," said Doug Boucher, director of tropical forests and climate initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Copenhagen talks are seen as crucial for several reasons. It's the date the international community – after years of negotiations – set as the time to draw up a comprehensive global solution to climate disruption.

Industry and governments need to know where emissions targets are headed post-Kyoto. December is the last chance to get a treaty ratified and in place before Kyoto expires in 2012, said Jennifer Morgan, director of the World Resources Institute's climate and energy team who has been involved in global climate talks for more than a decade.

Local efforts help, she agreed. But the global problem needs a global solution.

"It's a huge problem around the share of the commons in the atmosphere, and it's a very large economic issue," she said. "Countries need to have a sense that other main contributors to the problem – and their competitors – are moving together toward a solution.

"It's more than just the sum of the parts."

California, even more than Boulder, exemplifies local determination to curb emissions regardless of national or international stalemate. The state of 37 million people agreed in 2006 to tackle global warming. It has a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting system covering 90 percent of the state's industrial emissions. By law, the state has to ratchet those emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 – a 24 percent cut from business-as-usual projections.

But scientists say the world needs to slash emissions 80 percent by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. Boulder hasn't met Kyoto's modest target of a 7 percent cut over 1990 levels despite its tax and one of the nation's most eco-conscious populations, though city leaders say they expect to get close.

California faced a $26 billion spending hole earlier this summer that it filled in part by pulling money from local governments. While the state managed to protect many of its climate programs, local efforts aren't so lucky.

"A lot of this stuff might be put on the far back burner for a while," Martinson acknowledged.

California's municipalities, in fact, aren't seen as "agents of reduction" under the state's framework. There's no emissions bar under which cities must slip by a certain date.

"We are looking to forward-thinking municipalities to come up with innovative solutions," said Stanley Young, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board's climate programs.

"They're more nimble, certainly, than the state. In a sense they're able to be the test bed for these new approaches."

But at this point, he said, "it's all voluntary."

Still, cities are laying an important foundation that must be in place regardless of the target ultimately set by global leaders: They're figuring out the nuts and bolts of how to cut emissions.

"Demand-side reduction requires sophisticated implementation. It needs to show up at the local level and show up for the end-user," said Steve Pomerance, the former Boulder City Councilman who helped write Boulder's carbon tax earlier in the decade.

It's no surprise that Boulder would take the lead here.

The city is affluent – near the top 10 percent in the United States in per-capita income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau – and brainy. The University of Colorado, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and several other research institutions make the city a hub for science and innovation, repeatedly propelling the city to the top of Forbes' annual list of America's smartest cities. (link: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/250167)

It's also a green city, with a network of dedicated bike and hiking trails and the nation's oldest open-space program hemming development. Trails, sun, snow and mountains draw a young, outdoorsy demographic that boasts one of the most liberal voting records in the West.

In 1982 the city limited building heights that shaded lots to the north to preserve solar access on the neighboring lot. In 1987, long before most city councils had heard of global warming, the city reassessed its water plan to account for lower runoff expected in a warmer climate. It bought a crucial upstream reservoir to secure extra storage.

In 2002, with the Bush Administration stalling, Boulder decided it would meet the Kyoto protocol, and the council quickly concluded it needed a way to pay for the necessary climate change programs. Many argued for a fee, which didn't require voter approval.

Pomerance, a key player in both the solar shading law
and the reservoir purchase, pushed for a tax. "Go to the voters. Say straight out here's what you want to do," Pomerance said in an interview. "That way you have a mandate. (Otherwise) you're always swimming upstream politically."

In 2006, 60 percent of Boulder's voters approved the tax.

And the city discovered the hard work had just begun.

The tax is modest – $11 a year tacked to a typical household's energy bill. This summer the council raised the levy to its maximum, $21 per year for the average household. It will bring in $1.8 million next year.

The city offered home energy audits. It pushed biofuels and rooftop solar. It discounted energy-efficient lighting, furnaces and insulation. And six years in, the city found emissions have grown instead of shrunk.

That's the true difficulty in solving climate change, Pomerance says: World leaders can agree on targets. They can agree on a cap. But then what?

"That's just the first eighth-inch on top of a 10-foot pile of work. There's all these other pieces that have to go along with it," Pomerance said. "I'm a local politico. All I'm looking at is the implementation – 'OK, that's fine, now what do we do?' "

San Diego has taken a whack at that question, too.

Almost two years ago a coalition of environmental groups, utilities, and government agencies decided to combine various conservation and efficiency campaigns into one umbrella marketing effort – Stand for Less.

Nowhere on the campaign's website or advertising materials are the words "global warming" or "greenhouse gas emissions." Instead, the focus is on using less, recycling more, saving water, consolidating errands.

The goal, said Mark Oldfield, a spokesman for the state's Department of Conservation, which is coordinating the effort, is to see whether by tackling these very concrete efforts, a more abstract goal – California's climate change objectives – can be achieved.

"It's a very simple metric," Oldfield said. "We didn't want to make it brain surgery. We wanted to look at it and see clear-cut numbers."

The program is in its infancy. It has set no targets, and its survival is questionable: After spending $1 million on start-up and an initial media campaign, the department saw its advertising budget slashed as California worked its way out of a budget hole.

"But we're hoping that by targeting recycling and other things, we can impact indirectly some bigger things."

And this is where an international agreement could truly help, said Morgan, WRI's climate director.

"Local initiatives working very specifically and practically on engaging unions and companies and policy makers in making those shifts are absolutely essential," she said during a telephone interview from the Bonn climate talks earlier this summer.

"You also need to have a national policy. It makes the local job easier – 'If you go for renewables, then you get these tax incentives.' "

"And on the international level, you get a level of ambition that the country is going to work on this with the rest of the world," she added.

"It's really about making people see the interdependencies that exist."

Local leaders certainly don't mean global efforts should be underestimated.

Back in Boulder, city leaders already are looking for goals beyond 2012, when Kyoto expires. Its ability to establish a post-Kyoto target, said Jonathan Koehn, the city's environmental affairs manager, will depend "most certainly" on the city's ability to decarbonize the energy supply.

And that will require an international push.

"We can meet our current target with energy efficiency (measures) and Boulder residents making differences in their everyday lives," he said. "But to move beyond that we have to have move on a different playing field.

"It doesn't mean we stop the local efforts," Koehn added. But no agreement in Copenhagen would prolong the onset of "meaningful and widespread" changes in the near future.

Of course, that near future holds plenty of work – and change – for local governments – with or without a framework.

"The best we can expect from Copenhagen is targets," Pomerance said. "It doesn't solve problems. It just forces you to start figuring out how to deal with them."

"The high-level targets need to be connected to plans on the ground," he added.

"What's going to happen is Congress puts in cap-and-trade, and they're going to crank (carbon limits) down by 2050 – or hopefully sooner – and issue zero permits to coal plants. And the utilities will say, 'Well, what's step two?' "

"That's where the issue is going to show up. What it's going to eventually come down is plan," Pomerance said. "And what it's ultimately going to come down to is what are cities going to do, what are counties going to do, what are states going to do."